Harrison v. Milligan et al

Filing 38

ORDER 34 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 09-4665 SI (pr)
ORDER

v.
D.E. MILLIGAN, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

On September 21, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’

16

summary judgment motion. It appears that plaintiff did not receive a copy of the court’s

17

September 21, 2011 order at that time. On March 2, 2012, without yet having received the

18

court’s order on defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff moved to attach material

19

evidence to his original pleadings and to his opposition to the summary judgment motion.

20

(Docket #34.) In the alternative, plaintiff sought to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to

21

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). Plaintiff’s request is DENIED for the following reasons. Plaintiff’s

22

request to attach additional evidence to his pleadings is untimely; it comes over two years

23

after he filed his complaint. His request to attach additional evidence to his opposition is

24

moot as the court has already ruled on the summary judgment motion. To the extent that

25

plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the summary judgment motion, plaintiff’s motion is pre-

26

mature as he filed this motion without having received the court’s order on defendants’

27

summary judgment motion.

28

//

1

Plaintiff has since received a copy of the court’s order on defendants’ summary

2

judgment motion and has filed a motion for reconsideration. (Docket #36.) If plaintiff

3

believes that the evidence attached to his March 2, 2012 motion is relevant to his motion for

4

reconsideration, he may attach the relevant evidence to his reply in support of his motion for

5

reconsideration and explain its relevance. If plaintiff does attach new evidence to his reply,

6

defendants may file a sur-reply addressing this evidence. Defendants must file any sur-reply

7

within seven days of receiving plaintiff’s reply.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: March 22, 2012

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2